【摘要】：新《商標(biāo)法》在很大程度上對先用權(quán)、無效宣告和撤銷權(quán)做出了更進(jìn)一步的規(guī)定,而“商標(biāo)共存”問題卻懸而未決。由于我國在商標(biāo)法律保護(hù)上過于強(qiáng)調(diào)權(quán)利沖突而忽視了權(quán)利共存,過去很長一段時(shí)間我國行政機(jī)關(guān)和司法機(jī)關(guān)都對商標(biāo)專用權(quán)給予全面保護(hù),甚至認(rèn)為一個(gè)已注冊商標(biāo)可以排除所有在后注冊的近似商標(biāo)申請,一旦從物理屬性上判斷為相同或近似,兩個(gè)商標(biāo)同時(shí)出現(xiàn)在市場中就一定會(huì)給消費(fèi)者造成混淆,并以此為由駁回商標(biāo)申請或者認(rèn)定商標(biāo)侵權(quán)。這種觀點(diǎn)在鱷魚商標(biāo)案之后已經(jīng)有所緩和。商標(biāo)權(quán)人也在積極尋求實(shí)現(xiàn)商標(biāo)共存的有效途徑,為的是避免訴訟與侵權(quán),而商標(biāo)共存協(xié)議就能實(shí)現(xiàn)這一目的。而由于我國曾一度認(rèn)為近似即侵權(quán),直到2010年最高院通過“鱷魚”案以不構(gòu)成混淆性近似為由判定兩商標(biāo)合法共存。其實(shí)在國外市場商標(biāo)共存已是非常普遍的現(xiàn)象,在美國、英國和日本等國家和地區(qū)都有比較完善的商標(biāo)共存制度。但由于我國對商標(biāo)共存的立法不完善,現(xiàn)實(shí)中行政機(jī)關(guān)和司法機(jī)關(guān)在商標(biāo)審查時(shí)對共存協(xié)議態(tài)度不明確,而目前的市場經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)際情況是商標(biāo)共存的事實(shí)和需求越來越廣泛,導(dǎo)致在司法實(shí)踐中,無論是商標(biāo)授權(quán)階段還是商標(biāo)確權(quán)階段,不同機(jī)關(guān)面對各種繁雜的案件無法依照一個(gè)統(tǒng)一的指導(dǎo)原則進(jìn)行判斷和分析,甚至同一個(gè)案件在不同機(jī)關(guān)手中會(huì)得出完全不同的結(jié)論。這不利于市場的有效發(fā)展,關(guān)鍵問題還是沒有對商標(biāo)共存給出直接的法律規(guī)定或者可以參考的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn),同時(shí)也未厘清商標(biāo)共存與商標(biāo)混淆、商標(biāo)侵權(quán)之間的關(guān)系,也說明建立商標(biāo)共存制度任重而道遠(yuǎn)。無論是新舊《中華人民共和國商標(biāo)法》、《中華人民共和國商標(biāo)法實(shí)施條例》或者相關(guān)司法解釋、商標(biāo)審查與審理標(biāo)準(zhǔn)中并沒有直接規(guī)定商標(biāo)共存的法條,或者任何可以直接在執(zhí)法或司法程序中可以參考或援引的規(guī)定。因此,在商標(biāo)授權(quán)或者確權(quán)過程中,一旦出現(xiàn)商標(biāo)相同或者近似的情形,一般我國商標(biāo)局會(huì)駁回申請并且不予公告;或者他人會(huì)以保護(hù)在先權(quán)利和防止惡意搶注的原則和精神,在初審公告期內(nèi)提出異議;或者針對已經(jīng)成功注冊的商標(biāo),以在先權(quán)利人的身份,請求商標(biāo)評審委員會(huì)宣告該注冊商標(biāo)無效。2014年10月14日,最高人民法院發(fā)布的司法解釋第二十條對商標(biāo)共存協(xié)議做出了一定的規(guī)定,說明人民法院在審查商標(biāo)能否共存時(shí)會(huì)參考雙方當(dāng)事人的共存協(xié)議,以此判斷商標(biāo)共存會(huì)否導(dǎo)致混淆或者誤認(rèn)。近兩年的司法實(shí)踐中,尤其是良子商標(biāo)案之后,已經(jīng)有部分法院對于商標(biāo)共存采取積極、支持的態(tài)度,例如北京市高級人民法院審結(jié)的“UGG”商標(biāo)案。如果商標(biāo)權(quán)人自己都認(rèn)為共存不會(huì)對其產(chǎn)生不良影響的話,除非有其他證據(jù)能夠充分證明存在混淆可能性,否則法院就應(yīng)該尊重當(dāng)事人的自主處分權(quán),如果損害消費(fèi)者利益不會(huì)受到較大不必要的損害,商標(biāo)共存就應(yīng)該得到充分尊重。相比之下,境外對于商標(biāo)共存的立法還是比較完善的,例如美國《蘭哈姆法》第二條第四款規(guī)定并存注冊的必要條件;《協(xié)調(diào)成員國商標(biāo)立法1988年12月21日歐洲共同體理事會(huì)第一號指令》第九條關(guān)于“因容忍導(dǎo)致權(quán)利的喪失”規(guī)定,德國現(xiàn)行的《商標(biāo)和其他標(biāo)志保護(hù)法》中也有類似規(guī)定。英國現(xiàn)行的《商標(biāo)法》第七條則規(guī)定了善意地同時(shí)使用。日本《商標(biāo)法》第32條規(guī)定了“在先使用的商標(biāo)的使用權(quán)”,以及我國臺灣地區(qū)商標(biāo)法第30條第三款對善意使用的規(guī)定,都直接或間接地對商標(biāo)共存情況做出了規(guī)定與制約�；煜碚搼�(yīng)是商標(biāo)共存的理論前提,可以把商標(biāo)共存看成是商標(biāo)不構(gòu)成侵權(quán)時(shí)的一種合法狀態(tài),因此在認(rèn)定商標(biāo)共存時(shí)應(yīng)符合公平的法律價(jià)值。本文旨在對于商標(biāo)共存的認(rèn)定與規(guī)制提出若干建議,在認(rèn)定因素方面提出了幾個(gè)關(guān)鍵的因素,包括商標(biāo)的實(shí)際使用情況、市場格局、主觀意圖、商標(biāo)共存協(xié)議以及相關(guān)消費(fèi)者認(rèn)知,并且提出在邏輯層面上,各個(gè)認(rèn)定因素會(huì)相互影響,例如主觀意圖的認(rèn)定是可以由其他幾個(gè)因素加以體現(xiàn)和推導(dǎo)而出;具體到實(shí)際的商標(biāo)共存認(rèn)定中,依據(jù)不同商標(biāo)共存情形,上述幾個(gè)認(rèn)定因素之間也存在著內(nèi)在聯(lián)系并相互影響,認(rèn)定方法和考慮程度也有所不同。在立法層面上,本文對《商標(biāo)法》、《商標(biāo)法實(shí)施條例》以及《商標(biāo)審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)》也給出了若干修改建議,包括提供商標(biāo)注冊要求和審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn),將某些濫竽充數(shù)的商標(biāo)申請排除在外,例如某些顯著性較低的商標(biāo),因?yàn)檫@類商標(biāo)較易發(fā)生商標(biāo)共存現(xiàn)象,若要提高顯著性就只有通過商標(biāo)的商業(yè)性使用才能獲得,但這些都是不確定的因素,也可能正因?yàn)槠滹@著性較低,導(dǎo)致在實(shí)際的商業(yè)使用中較難再加強(qiáng)其顯著性,也可能較難累積商譽(yù);明確商標(biāo)審查時(shí)的混淆可能性判斷,建議將《商標(biāo)法》第三十條修改為:“申請注冊的商標(biāo),凡不符合本法有關(guān)規(guī)定或者同他人在同一種商品或者類似商品上已經(jīng)注冊的或者初步審定的商標(biāo)相同或者近似,容易導(dǎo)致混淆的,由商標(biāo)局駁回申請,不予公告”;引入證據(jù)輔助制度,可以在《商標(biāo)法》以及《商標(biāo)法實(shí)施條例》的“第二章商標(biāo)注冊的申請”中增加一條關(guān)于提交能夠證明商標(biāo)使用情況文件的規(guī)定,具體可以這樣表述:“申請商標(biāo)注冊的,對于已經(jīng)使用的商標(biāo),申請人應(yīng)當(dāng)在申請時(shí)提交商標(biāo)實(shí)際使用的證明文件;對于未使用的商標(biāo),公告期滿無異議的,申請人應(yīng)當(dāng)提交商標(biāo)在公告期屆滿前已經(jīng)實(shí)際使用商標(biāo)的證明文件或者未來三年申請人對該商標(biāo)的使用計(jì)劃書。待商標(biāo)局審查前述相關(guān)使用證明或文件后,對商標(biāo)予以核準(zhǔn)注冊,并予公告�！蓖瑫r(shí)在公告系統(tǒng)中可以公告商標(biāo)局審查并認(rèn)可的商標(biāo)最初使用時(shí)間,可作為他人商標(biāo)檢索和申請時(shí)的參考和提示,提高申請注冊商標(biāo)的質(zhì)量,避免因商標(biāo)先用權(quán)問題產(chǎn)生的糾紛,同時(shí)也將注冊制度與使用行為結(jié)合起來,降低商標(biāo)在先使用人與在后注冊之間的商標(biāo)共存爭議;完善在先商標(biāo)使用人無效宣告請求的適用,可以在新《商標(biāo)法》第四十五條中關(guān)于第三十二條的情形另規(guī)定一款:“在先權(quán)利人或者利害關(guān)系人依據(jù)本法第三十二條的規(guī)定,自商標(biāo)注冊之日起滿五年后請求宣告注冊商標(biāo)無效的,應(yīng)充分說明其未在商標(biāo)注冊之日起五年內(nèi)提出請求的理由。若無法證明屬于惡意注冊的,則應(yīng)提供相關(guān)文件證明注冊商標(biāo)容易導(dǎo)致混淆或者有其他不良影響。未按照本條的要求提供真實(shí)有效文件材料的,不予受理無效宣告申請”;以及商標(biāo)共存協(xié)議體系的建立,商標(biāo)共存協(xié)議體現(xiàn)了引證商標(biāo)權(quán)利人的真實(shí)意思表示,是其基于市場實(shí)際審慎做出的排除混淆可能性的判斷,應(yīng)當(dāng)予以充分的考慮和尊重。本文由五章內(nèi)容構(gòu)成:第一章闡述了商標(biāo)共存的基本概念,對于商標(biāo)共存的含義,介紹了商標(biāo)共存產(chǎn)生的主要原因,探討了商標(biāo)共存在我國存在的正當(dāng)性,為下文商標(biāo)共存的進(jìn)一步分類討論做了有力鋪墊,指出研究商標(biāo)共存的必要性。第二章主要分析了我國商標(biāo)共存的現(xiàn)狀,從立法和司法實(shí)踐兩個(gè)方面切入主題,旨在引出我國立法層面的不完善以及司法標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不一的問題。進(jìn)一步對于商標(biāo)共存的境內(nèi)外立法進(jìn)行了比較分析,通過分析美國、歐洲以及亞洲若干國家與商標(biāo)共存相關(guān)的立法,分析我國在商標(biāo)共存方面立法的不足,指出執(zhí)法司法實(shí)務(wù)中因此產(chǎn)生的問題和現(xiàn)狀。第三章是本文的核心章節(jié),在以混淆理論為前提的情況下,逐個(gè)分析商標(biāo)共存的認(rèn)定因素,并在此基礎(chǔ)上將各個(gè)因素融入到具體情形中加以適用,整理出若干分析商標(biāo)共存案件的邏輯思路。第四章是對上述內(nèi)容的深化,以理論結(jié)合實(shí)踐,針對我國商標(biāo)共存的立法和司法給出若干建議,希望能對之后商標(biāo)共存體系的發(fā)展給出一點(diǎn)啟示。
[Abstract]:The new Trademark Law, to a great extent, further stipulates the right of prior use, the right of invalidation and revocation, but the problem of "trademark coexistence" is still pending. Because of the over-emphasis on the conflict of rights and the neglect of the coexistence of rights in the legal protection of trademarks, the administrative organs and judicial organs in China have for a long time in the past on trademarks. The exclusive right to use a registered trademark gives full protection and even holds that a registered trademark can exclude all similar trademark applications that have been registered. Once it is judged that the two trademarks are identical or similar in physical attributes, the appearance of the two trademarks in the market at the same time will certainly confuse consumers, and on this basis, the trademark application or trademark infringement will be rejected. Trademark owners are also actively seeking effective ways to achieve trademark coexistence in order to avoid litigation and infringement, and trademark coexistence agreements can achieve this goal. In fact, the coexistence of trademarks in foreign markets is a very common phenomenon. In the United States, Britain, Japan and other countries and regions, there is a relatively perfect system of trademark coexistence. The attitude of agreement is not clear, but the actual situation of market economy is that the fact and demand of trademark coexistence are more and more extensive, which leads to the fact that different organs can not judge and analyze various complicated cases according to a unified guiding principle, even the same in judicial practice, whether in the stage of trademark authorization or in the stage of trademark confirmation. This is not conducive to the effective development of the market, the key problem is that there is no direct legal provisions or reference standards for the coexistence of trademarks, and the relationship between trademark coexistence and confusion, trademark infringement and the establishment of trademark coexistence system are not clarified. Whether it is the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, the Implementing Regulations of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China or the relevant judicial interpretations, there is no law directly stipulating the coexistence of trademarks in the standards of trademark examination and adjudication, or any provision that can be referred to or invoked directly in the law enforcement or judicial proceedings. In the process of trademark authorization or confirmation, if the same or similar trademark situation occurs, the Trademark Office of China will generally reject the application and refuse to make a public announcement; or other people will raise objections within the period of the announcement of the preliminary trial to protect the prior rights and prevent malicious preemption; or for trademarks that have been successfully registered, in order to have a prior right. On October 14, 2014, Article 20 of the Judicial Interpretation issued by the Supreme People's Court stipulates certain provisions on the trademark coexistence agreement, indicating that when examining whether a trademark can coexist, the People's Court will refer to the coexistence agreement of both parties in order to judge the trademark coexistence. In recent two years'judicial practice, especially after the Liangzi Trademark Case, some courts have taken a positive and supportive attitude towards the coexistence of trademarks, such as the UGG Trademark Case concluded by the Beijing Higher People's Court. If there is no other evidence to prove the possibility of confusion, the court should respect the parties'right to dispose of the trademark independently. If the interests of consumers are not harmed more unnecessarily, the coexistence of trademarks should be fully respected. Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Lanham Act stipulates the necessary conditions for the coexistence of registration; Article 9, Directive No. 1 of the Council of the European Communities of 21 December 1988 on the Coordination of Trademark Legislation of Member States, stipulates that "loss of rights due to tolerance", and similar provisions are found in the existing Trademark and Other Marks Protection Act of Germany. Article 7 of the Trademark Law of Japan stipulates the right to the use of a trademark used in good faith. Article 32 of the Trademark Law of Japan stipulates the right to the use of a trademark used in advance, and Article 30, paragraph 3, of the Trademark Law of Taiwan of China stipulates and restricts the coexistence of trademarks directly or indirectly. On the premise, the coexistence of trademarks can be regarded as a legal state when trademarks do not constitute infringement, so the coexistence of trademarks should conform to fair legal value. Market pattern, subjective intention, trademark coexistence agreement and related consumer cognition, and put forward that each factor of identification will affect each other logically, for example, the determination of subjective intention can be reflected and derived by several other factors; specific to the actual identification of trademark coexistence, according to the coexistence of different trademarks. On the legislative level, this paper also gives some suggestions on the revision of Trademark Law, Regulations for the Implementation of Trademark Law and Trademark Examination Standards, including the provision of trademark registration requirements and examination standards, and the overuse of certain items. Trademark applications are excluded, for example, certain trademarks with lower saliency, because such trademarks are more prone to trademark coexistence and can only be obtained through the commercial use of trademarks, but these are uncertain factors, and may be precisely because of their lower saliency, leading to more difficult in actual commercial use. It may also be difficult to accumulate goodwill if its saliency is strengthened, and it is suggested that Article 30 of the Trademark Law be amended to read: "Where a trademark which has not been registered in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Law or has been registered in the same commodity or similar commodity with another person or has been preliminarily approved, the trademark which has been registered in the same commodity or similar commodity is the same or the trademark which has been preliminarily registered The Trademark Office shall reject the application and not make a public announcement if the application is similar to that of the trademark office, and the supplementary evidence system may be introduced into the "Application for Trademark Registration in Chapter II" of the Trademark Law and the "Regulations for the Implementation of the Trademark Law". A provision concerning the submission of documents proving the use of trademarks may be formulated as follows: "Application for trademarks" Where the trademark has been registered, the applicant shall submit the certificate of the actual use of the trademark at the time of application; if there is no objection to the expiration of the period of announcement for the unused trademark, the applicant shall submit the certificate of the actual use of the trademark before the expiration of the period of announcement or the application plan for the use of the trademark for the next three years. After the Trademark Office has examined the above-mentioned relevant certificates or documents of use, it shall approve and register the trademark and make a public announcement. "At the same time, it may announce the initial use time of the trademark examined and approved by the Trademark Office in the public announcement system, which may be used as a reference and suggestion for other people's trademark retrieval and application, so as to improve the quality of the registered trademark and avoid the prior use of the trademark The disputes arising from the issue of the right to use may be reduced by combining the registration system with the use of the trademark, so as to reduce the disputes between the first user and the later registrant of the trademark. If the prior obligee or interested party, in accordance with the provisions of Article 32 of this Law, requests to declare a registered trademark invalid after five years from the date of registration of the trademark, he or she shall fully explain the reasons why he or she has not made the request within five years from the date of registration of the trademark. If it is unable to prove malicious registration, he or she shall provide relevant documents to prove the content of the registered trademark. It is liable to cause confusion or other adverse effects. Where authentic and valid documents and materials are not provided in accordance with the requirements of this Article, the application for invalidation shall not be accepted; and the establishment of the system of trademark coexistence agreement, which embodies the true intention of the holder of the quoted trademark, is a prudent removal of confusion based on the actual market conditions. This paper consists of five chapters: Chapter one expounds the basic concept of trademark coexistence, the meaning of trademark coexistence, introduces the main causes of trademark coexistence, discusses the legitimacy of trademark coexistence in China, and makes a further discussion on the classification of trademark coexistence. Chapter 2 mainly analyzes the present situation of trademark coexistence in China, starting from the two aspects of legislation and judicial practice, aiming at eliciting the imperfection of legislation and the problems of different judicial standards. The third chapter is the core chapter of this paper. On the premise of confusion theory, it analyzes the factors that determine the coexistence of trademarks one by one. On the basis of this, the author puts various factors into the specific situation and applies them, and sorts out some logical ideas to analyze the trademark coexistence cases. The fourth chapter is the deepening of the above-mentioned contents, combining theory with practice, and gives some suggestions for the legislation and judicature of trademark coexistence in China, hoping to give some suggestions for the development of trademark coexistence system in the future. Point out.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923.43

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 石傳柏,李曙明;北方十省市商標(biāo)辦案協(xié)作會(huì)在鄭召開[J];中華商標(biāo);2000年01期

2 李琛 ,孫維國;商標(biāo)固有的顯著性對其擴(kuò)大保護(hù)的影響——關(guān)于兩“醒目”商標(biāo)異議案裁定結(jié)果不同的一種解釋[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2003年05期

3 左旭初;我國第一部商標(biāo)法規(guī)誕生始末[J];中華商標(biāo);2004年04期

4 王翔;趙泓任;;從商標(biāo)功能的演變看商標(biāo)保護(hù)理論的發(fā)展[J];中國工商管理研究;2006年07期

5 安青虎;;品牌與商標(biāo)[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2006年04期

6 邱平榮;張曉云;;新農(nóng)村建設(shè)中農(nóng)產(chǎn)品商標(biāo)保障策略探究[J];重慶科技學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年05期

7 谷昕;;淺議中藥商標(biāo)保護(hù)問題及對策[J];經(jīng)營管理者;2011年22期

8 周新艷;;試看中國企業(yè)海外商標(biāo)保護(hù)需求[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2011年11期

9 唐永春;國際商標(biāo)保護(hù)簡述[J];國際貿(mào)易問題;1986年02期

10 謝元元;著名商標(biāo)保護(hù)的研究[J];福建論壇(經(jīng)濟(jì)社會(huì)版);1996年06期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前10條

1 吳凱;;藥品商標(biāo)保護(hù)的最新進(jìn)展[A];中國藥學(xué)會(huì)醫(yī)藥知識產(chǎn)權(quán)研究專業(yè)委員會(huì)2013年學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)會(huì)議資料[C];2013年

2 瞿東亮;;如何運(yùn)用商標(biāo)保護(hù)戰(zhàn)略防范商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和提高維權(quán)的力度[A];2009中華全國律師協(xié)會(huì)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)專業(yè)委員會(huì)年會(huì)暨中國律師知識產(chǎn)權(quán)高層論壇論文集（下）[C];2009年

3 孔德麗;;關(guān)于閑置商標(biāo)的幾點(diǎn)看法[A];哈爾濱市工商行政管理學(xué)會(huì)第四屆會(huì)員代表大會(huì)會(huì)刊暨2001年度獲獎(jiǎng)優(yōu)秀理論文章調(diào)研成果匯編[C];2003年

4 蔡葉菁;;商標(biāo)共存問題研究——原理、比較與建構(gòu)[A];探索社會(huì)主義司法規(guī)律與完善民商事法律制度研究——全國法院第23屆學(xué)術(shù)討論會(huì)獲獎(jiǎng)?wù)撐募ㄏ拢C];2011年

5 劉佳婕;;論在先使用商標(biāo)的保護(hù)[A];2013年中華全國專利代理人協(xié)會(huì)年會(huì)暨第四屆知識產(chǎn)權(quán)論壇論文匯編第四部分[C];2013年

6 路洋;;試論商標(biāo)的顯著性特征[A];當(dāng)代法學(xué)論壇（2008年第1輯）[C];2008年

7 劉遠(yuǎn)山;夏余楊;;論我國商標(biāo)侵權(quán)及其民事和行政法律制裁[A];當(dāng)代法學(xué)論壇（2007年第1輯）[C];2007年

8 姜斐斐;;論商標(biāo)的淡化及其法律規(guī)制[A];2009中華全國律師協(xié)會(huì)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)專業(yè)委員會(huì)年會(huì)暨中國律師知識產(chǎn)權(quán)高層論壇論文集（上）[C];2009年

9 趙立春;;巧選商品項(xiàng)目,合理保護(hù)商標(biāo)[A];2014年中華全國專利代理人協(xié)會(huì)年會(huì)第五屆知識產(chǎn)權(quán)論壇論文（第二部分）[C];2014年

10 李靜冰;;缺乏內(nèi)在顯著性的著名商標(biāo)是否受反淡化法的保護(hù)——2002年國際商標(biāo)協(xié)會(huì)第124屆年會(huì)模擬法庭辯論綜述[A];入世后知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法律服務(wù)實(shí)務(wù)研討會(huì)暨全國律協(xié)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)專業(yè)委員會(huì)2002年年會(huì)論文匯編[C];2002年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 劉紅霞;論商標(biāo)價(jià)值的構(gòu)成[N];中國工商報(bào);2002年

2 于夢;中部六省商標(biāo)保護(hù)協(xié)作網(wǎng)將建[N];中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)報(bào);2007年

3 記者 王英;我市新增知名商標(biāo)57件[N];蘇州日報(bào);2009年

4 李南玲 李 萍;“商標(biāo)短視病”纏身中國企業(yè)[N];中國企業(yè)報(bào);2005年

5 記者 姜龍;我市去年查辦商標(biāo)案件109起[N];大慶日報(bào);2010年

6 記者 甘曉妹　通訊員 苗青;17個(gè)商標(biāo)和企業(yè)將被重點(diǎn)保護(hù)[N];徐州日報(bào);2010年

7 集佳知識產(chǎn)權(quán)代理有限公司 周新艷;中國企業(yè)海外商標(biāo)保護(hù)需求特點(diǎn)[N];國際商報(bào);2011年

8 本報(bào)記者 李春 實(shí)習(xí)生 許夢迪;構(gòu)筑起企業(yè)商標(biāo)保護(hù)“防火墻”[N];中國工商報(bào);2012年

9 陳希榮 牟文秋;包裝圖案及商標(biāo)的定位與設(shè)計(jì)[N];中國包裝報(bào);2005年

10 陳奇?zhèn)?劉曉軍;商標(biāo)與知識經(jīng)濟(jì)時(shí)代[N];中國工商報(bào);2001年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 李小武;商標(biāo)反淡化研究[D];中國社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院;2010年

2 葉強(qiáng);我國商標(biāo)侵權(quán)治理的制度因素研究[D];南京航空航天大學(xué);2009年

3 黃暉;商標(biāo)權(quán)利范圍的比較研究[D];中國社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院;2000年

4 徐聰穎;論商標(biāo)的符號表彰功能[D];西南政法大學(xué);2011年

5 魏森;論商標(biāo)的淡化[D];對外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2007年

6 金YТ，

本文編號：2202903